Passivisation in Turkish

The passivisation process in Turkish represents some peculiar features on various linguistic levels. The answer to the question ?What is the canonical structure for the passives in Turkish?? can be rendered with a wider point-of-view through corpus analyses conducted on grammatical, semantic and discourse-pragmatic levels. Briefly, in a study aiming at explaining passivisation in Turkish, concentrating only on the morphosyntactic representations may lead the semantic and discourse-semantic functions, which trigger the passivisation process, to remain uncovered. Since Functional Grammar (FG), which comprises the theoretical framework of this study, reckons the semantic and discourse-pragmatic levels as well as the grammatical level, it provides a wider perspective for the analysis of passivisation. Another essential feature FG contributes to the research is that it allows for real language use that grounds on performance instead of abstract language production that grounds on competence. This study uses Corpus-Bsed Analysis Method along with the approach of FG which takes performance as its basis. Therefore, the passivisation process can be analysed through the texts produced without the interference of the researcher.The diachronic perspective used in explaining the function of the canonical passives in Turkish, covers some hints on the formal and functional origins of the canonical passive. The corpus analyses conducted by diachronic perspective may provide clarification on formal and functional features that can not be handled by synchronic perspective. The study?s drawing upon both diachronic and synchronic methods has also designated the texts to be analysed. Thus, the corpus comprises of Modern Turkish (MT) texts and historical texts belonging to the eras before MT.The canonical passive in Turkish, generally, spans a process where the [+control] feature in the State-of-Affairs designated by the predicate frames turns into [-control]. When the period from Orkhon Turkish to MT is studied, it is seen that functions as omission or suppression of the Agent are not basic functions of canonical passive. The canonical passive in Turkish, instead of resting on suppression of the participants, reflects a function that foregrounds the event and presupposes agentivity; that is, passivisation in Turkish is not participant-oriented but event-oriented; therefore, the demotion of the agent and the promotion of non-agentive participant are not among the functions that trigger passivisation. In parallel with event-oriented passivisation being the canonical function, the tarafından phrase (by-phrase) passives had started to be seen since the Classical Ottoman Turkish era. The tarafından-phrase passive, does not have the frequency to be the canonical structure even in MT. Again the event-oriented passivisation became one of the factors that influence the semantic features of the agent in the passivisation process. It has been observed that, in Turkish, the passivisation and the agents that take place in the passivisation process had been subject to certain alterations in terms of markedness shift.Keywords: passive, passivisation, voice, functional grammar, synchronic perspective, diachronic perspective, Agent, markedness shift, presupposition